The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was to compare treatment outcomes with “bite jumping appliance” (BJA) or Andresen-Häupl type activator. It especially focused on skeletal and dental structures in patients with class II malocclusion. The study hypothesis was that differences in treatment-related changes would occur between patients treated with BJA or activator.
Material and methods
Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 73 patients with a class II malocclusion were analyzed. Thirty-seven patients (22 females, 15 males) received treatment with a BJA (pretreatment age 11.1 ± 1.07 years) and 36 patients (20 females, 16 males) with an activator (pretreatment age 11.3 ± 1.12 years). Treatment time was 14.0 ± 1.8 months with BJA and 12.0 ± 2.0 months with activator. Paired t tests were used for intragroup and t tests for independent samples for intergroup comparisons. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.
The comparison of sagittal and vertical skeletal changes after BJA and activator treatment did not reveal significant differences. Significant changes occurred for lower incisor inclination (P = 0.0367) and overjet (P = 0.0125) only. The reduction of overjet and proclination of lower incisors were more pronounced in BJA patients.
Both “bite jumping appliance” (BJA) and Andresen-Häupl type activator were able to improve the occlusion of patients with a class II malocclusion. Dental effects were more pronounced for the BJA.
Marked lower incisor proclination contributed significantly to overjet correction in BJA patients. This ought to be respected when choosing a removable functional appliance for patients whose lower incisors are already proclined prior to treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
DiBiase AT, Cobourne MT, Lee RT (2015) The use of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontic practice. Br Dent J 218:123–128
Rudzki-Janson I, Noachtar R (1998) Functional appliance therapy with the Bionator. Semin Orthod 4:33–45
Robin P (1902) Observation sur un nouvel appareil de redressement. Rev Stomatol 9:423–432
Robin P (1902) Démonstration pratique sur la construction et la mise en bouche d'un nouvelle appareil de redressement. Rev Stomatol 9:561–590
Andresen V, Häupl K (1936) Funktionskieferorthopädie. Verlag von Hermann Meusser, Leipzig
Bishara SE, Ziaja RR (1989) Functional appliances: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 95:250–258
Collett AR (2000) Current concepts on functional appliances and mandibular growth stimulation. Aust Dent J 45:173–178
Tränkmann J (1985) Die Plattenapparatur in der Kieferorthopädie. Quintessenz, Berlin
Clark WJ (1982) The Twin Block traction technique. Eur J Orthod 4:129–138
Sander FG, Wichelhaus A (1995) Skeletal and dental changes during the use of the bite-jumping plate. A cephalometric comparison with an untreated class-II group. Fortschr Kieferorthop 56:127–139
Wedler S, Tränkmann J, Lisson JA (2006) Treatment outcome in angle class II, division 1 patients in pre-puberty and puberty after jumping-the-bite appliance. J Orofac Orthop 67:105–115
Stec-Slonicz M, Weindel S, Paurevic S, Lisson JA (2008) Arch changes after class II, division 1 treatment with jumping-the-bite appliances. J Orofac Orthop 69:373–382
Lisson JA, Tränkmann J (2002) Effects of angle class II, division 1 treatment with jumping-the-bite appliances. A longitudinal study. J Orofac Orthop 63:14–25
O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P, Birnie D, Hammond M, Harradine N, Lewis D, McDade C, Mitchell L, Murray A, O'Neill J, Read M, Robinson S, Roberts-Harry D, Sandler J, Shaw I (2003) Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-Block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:234–243
Burhan AS, Nawaya FR (2015) Dentoskeletal effects of the bite-jumping appliance and the Twin-Block appliance in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 37:330–337
Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A, Tagliaferri R, Cimino R, Michelotti A, Valletta R, Farella M, Paduano S (2013) Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofacial Res 16:116–126
De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W (2002) Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121:458–466
Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H (2006) Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-Block and bionator appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:594–602
Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT (1998) A prospective evaluation of bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 20:501–516
Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA (2002) An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod 72:316–323
Schopf P (2008) Curriculum Kieferorthopädie. Band I. Quintessenz-Verlag, Berlin
Cericato GO, Bittencourt MA, Paranhos LR (2015) Validity of the assessment method of skeletal maturation by cervical vertebrae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140270
Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2015) Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 37:418–434
Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publications, New York
Sander FG, Lassak C (1990) The modification of growth with the jumping-the-bite plate compared to other functional orthodontic appliances. Fortschr Kieferorthop 51:155–164
IRCP (2001) Radiation and your patient - a guide for medical practitioners. ICRP supporting guidance 2. Available at: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Supporting%20Guidance%202 accessed:2019-19-05. Ann IRCP 31
Hassel B, Farman AG (1995) Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 107:58–66
San Roman P, Palma JC, Oteo MD, Nevado E (2002) Skeletal maturation determined by cervical vertebrae development. Eur J Orthod 24:303–311
Flores-Mir C, Burgess CA, Champney M, Jensen RJ, Pitcher MR, Major PW (2006) Correlation of skeletal maturation stages determined by cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist evaluations. Angle Orthod 76:1–5
Lai EH, Liu JP, Chang JZ, Tsai SJ, Yao CC, Chen MH, Chen YJ, Lin CP (2008) Radiographic assessment of skeletal maturation stages for orthodontic patients: hand-wrist bones or cervical vertebrae? J Formos Med Assoc 107:316–325
Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Sari Z (2003) The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 25:87–93
Pancherz H (1982) The mechanism of class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 82:104–113
Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S (2007) Short-term anteroposterior treatment effects of functional appliances and extraoral traction on class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 77:907–914
Cozza P, De Toffol L, Iacopini L (2004) An analysis of the corrective contribution in activator treatment. Angle Orthod 74:741–748
Hönn M, Schneider C, Dietz K, Godt A, Göz G (2006) Treating class II patients with removable plates and functional orthopedic appliances. J Orofac Orthop 67:272–288
Lux CJ, Rubel J, Starke J, Conradt C, Stellzig PA, Komposch PG (2001) Effects of early activator treatment in patients with class II malocclusion evaluated by thin-plate spline analysis. Angle Orthod 71:120–126
Calvert FJ (1982) An assessment of Andresen therapy on class II division 1 malocclusion. Br J Orthod 9:149–153
Fischbach H, Kahl-Nieke B (1995) The treatment of skeietal class II with removable appliances - a retrospective evaluation. J Orofac Orthop 56:140–147
van der Linden FPGM (1971) A study of roentgenocephalometric bony landmarks. Am J Orthod 59:111–125
Al-Abdwani R, Moles DR, Noar JH (2009) Change of incisor inclination effects on points A and B. Angle Orthod 79:462–467
Al-Nimri KS, Hazza'a AM, Al-Omari RM (2009) Maxillary incisor proclination effect on the position of point a in class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 79:880–884
Kinzinger G, Diedrich P (2005) Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop 66:469–490
Bhatia SN, Leighton BC (1993) A manual of facial growth. A computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jamilian A, Showkatbakhsh R, Amiri SS (2011) Treatment effects of the R-appliance and Twin Block in class II division 1 malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 33:354–358
Schott TC, Ludwig B, Glasl B, Lisson JA (2011) A microsensor for monitoring removable-appliance wear. J Clin Orthod 45:518–520
Brierley CA, Benson PE, Sandler J (2017) How accurate are TheraMon(R) microsensors at measuring intraoral wear-time? Recorded vs. actual wear times in five volunteers. J Orthod 44:241–248
Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127
Hirschfelder U, Fleischer-Peters A (1993) Kritische Bewertung funktionskieferorthopädisch behandelter Klasse-II-Anomalien. Fortschr Kieferorthop 54:237–248
Levin KA (2006) Study design V. Case–control studies. Evid Based Dent 7:83–84
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457
Jarabak JR and Fizzel JA (1972) Light-wire edgewise appliance, Vol. I Mosby, St. Louis
Kirschneck C, Römer P, Proff P, Lippold C (2013) Association of dentoskeletal morphology with incisor inclination in angle class II patients: a retrospective cephalometric study. Head Face Med 9:24
Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN (2009) Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 79:859–866
Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B (1997) Cephalometric characteristics of class II division 1 and class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 67:111–120
Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, Dinbar A, Dinte A, Wasserstein A (2002) Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of angle class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 72:251–257
Isik F, Nalbantgil D, Sayinsu K, Arun T (2006) A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 28:179–183
Wichelhaus A, Sander FG (1995) The dental and skeletal effects of the jumping-the-bite plate and high-pull headgear combination. A clinical study of treated patients. Fortschr Kieferorthop 56:202–215
Wichelhaus A (1993) Die Vorschubdoppelplatte - Modifikationen und deren Einsatzbereich. Teil 1: Kombination der Vorschubdoppelplatte mit einem Low-Pull-Headgear (I). Quintessenz 44:1295–1306
Wichelhaus A (1993) Die Vorschubdoppelplatte - Modifikationen und deren Einsatzbereich. Teil 1: Kombination der Vorschubdoppelplatte mit einem Low-Pull-Headgear (II). Quintessenz 44:1469–1479
Wichelhaus A (1993) Die Vorschubdoppelplatte - Modifikationen und deren Einsatzbereich. Teil 2: Kombination der Vorschubdoppelplatte mit einem High-Pull-Headgear (I). Quintessenz 44:1637–1647
Wichelhaus A (1993) Die Vorschubdoppelplatte - Modifikationen und deren Einsatzbereich. Teil 2: Kombination der Vorschubdoppelplatte mit einem High-Pull-Headgear (II). Quintessenz 44:1799–1811
Bendeus M, Hagg U, Rabie B (2002) Growth and treatment changes in patients treated with a headgear-activator appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121:376–384
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Ethical approval for this retrospective study was granted by the Ethics Commission of University of Aachen, Germany, No. 171/08.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Hourfar, J., Kinzinger, G.S.M., Euchner, L. et al. Differential skeletal and dental effects after orthodontic treatment with bite jumping appliance or activator: a retrospective cephalometric study. Clin Oral Invest 24, 2513–2521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03115-4
- Bite jumping appliance
- Class II correction
- Removable functional appliance